On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 09:08 -0400, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > At the very least, I think kernel developers each need to decide how
> > they feel about GPL enforcement as silence and inaction is as much of
> > a choice as voicing a view.
> 
> That's not fair, it's implying that our current way of doing this type
> of thing is somehow not working.  

There are many who believe that it *isn't* working. Companies violate
the GPL all the time, and are encouraged by the fact that there is no
consistent enforcement when they do so.

And it's worse than "silence and inaction". There are even some who
actually argue *against* and try to derail any efforts to improve and
enforce compliance. It's almost as if they'd rather the kernel was
under a BSD licence, so that such usage was permitted.

> Remember, we have done something that no other group has ever done
> before, so please don't discount that we know how to handle stuff
> like this.  Sometimes not making a public statement is actually the
> correct thing to do.

Well, that of course depends on what you want to achieve.

If you are happy with the status quo, and do not want violators to be
brought into compliance, then of course it's the correct thing to do.

I don't think everybody *is* happy with the status quo, though.

-- 
dwmw2